| 1 |
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 13:50 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: |
| 2 |
> Solar, |
| 3 |
> I realize you meant this as a general statement of opinion and not a |
| 4 |
> flame-baiter, but can you elaborate on: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> On Sunday 05 June 2005 11:37, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 7 |
> > Invalidates binary package trees. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> My (wrong?) understanding was that this is addressed when portage runs a |
| 10 |
> fixpackages (otherwise what's it doing to all those binary packages?). I ask |
| 11 |
> because its no secret that I'm working on a split up of dev-perl from the |
| 12 |
> 500+ packages to a better organized, reasonable scenario where packages are |
| 13 |
> categorized based on, well, category :) rather than on the fact that they |
| 14 |
> "contain some perl bits or module bits, stuff them in dev-perl". |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
In my experience, fixpackages doesn't actually fix this sometimes. I've |
| 17 |
had to phsyically delete the binary package and recreate it for the |
| 18 |
category to be fixed. Sadly, I haven't had time to search for a bug on |
| 19 |
it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Lance Albertson <ramereth@g.o> |
| 23 |
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
--- |
| 26 |
GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> |
| 27 |
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
ramereth/irc.freenode.net |
Archives